This is a nice article, but I think that the title is misleading. It's far too PC.

There is no way that one can conclude from the Gandhari findings that to the question of "Whose Buddhism is truest?" the answer is "No one's and everyone's". It really only could conclude that if we were only comparing say Pali Theravada from Sri Lanka with Sarvastivada or Dharmagupta from Kasmir / Gandhara. In fact in many ways, this article just further shows that the Mahayana in its various forms and later spin offs, is even more divergent from the common threads that existed in the mainstream traditions prior.

I do not get your point. If so many early texts appear in differing languages with differing words why not conclude that there is no single, definitive written Dharma? Buddha had many Arhat disciples with, I assume, great memories, so why should Ananda's versions be the best & only "true" record?

The Chinese Canon - in fact, several canons edited in China - contains thousands of texts, including multiple translations of the same work, but they did not start any movement saying that "nobody and everybody is correct". Since Buddhism never had a uniform and single Holy Scripture, the diversity of texts has been always present. At the end of the day, it is naturally MY (teacher's) BUDDHISM is the truest.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Astus wrote:The Chinese Canon - in fact, several canons edited in China - contains thousands of texts, including multiple translations of the same work, but they did not start any movement saying that "nobody and everybody is correct". Since Buddhism never had a uniform and single Holy Scripture, the diversity of texts has been always present. At the end of the day, it is naturally MY (teacher's) BUDDHISM is the truest.

The point of the article that impressed me had not to do with diversity of translations so much, as that different languages have different versions of a text, all of which are of the same date. So there is no Ur-text, but parallel recensions, which means (for now) that no lineage, sect or school can brag that they represent fully & accurately what Buddha taught. Everyone has versions of what Buddha taught and we cannot say, based on the texts, that any one version is exactly what he said; only that it is a report of what someone recalled him teaching.

This will (hopefully) lead to the dying of sectarianism and the accepting of the plausibility that many Dharma heresies of the "lower" "mistaken" schools may have been genuine Dharma teachings direct from Buddha.

Basically, there is not even one buddha, only great wisdom. Bodhisattva Hsuan Hua

In contrast to theism...where there is a strict qualification of this thing, and peoples presuppose....things have not changed or been changed over the years....historical record seems to deny that.

In any event I would say most lineages represent the teaching with nuance. But it is nuance not substantial part.And it seems such is buddhism always the buddha presented things in such a fashion each to their own level and propensity.So in that is it perhaps consistant.

Many many more similiarities then differences in this thing.

"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.

Does it strike anyone else as odd that this is such a concern here in the west?

I imagine that in thailand people don't sit around (at least as frequently as western students do) comparing one yana to another. and so on.

If you're a peasant in burma, or if you were a villager in pre-occupied tibet, then the dharma that was taught locally was "the dharma." And it was satisfactory in that it sated the spiritual needs of the population better than no-dharma at all.

I almost think about those ancient chinese monks who might live in a remote region, during a time when access to duplications of various scriptures was rare. They might have one or two sutras, and that'd be it. But they'd study those few texts religiously, and gain much enthusiasm and profound inspiriation for practice from those few textual sources.

We're so spoiled to live in a time and place with so many variant strains accessable to us. Most sutras are a mouse-click away on google. This is a revolutionary development.

Beatzen wrote:Does it strike anyone else as odd that this is such a concern here in the west?

It's the anxious, neurotic concern of someone who is out shopping for the best newest and brightest Dharma widget, and fears serious buyer's remorse. It's the logic of consumerism projected onto the spiritual scene IMO.

Beatzen wrote:Does it strike anyone else as odd that this is such a concern here in the west?

It's the anxious, neurotic concern of someone who is out shopping for the best newest and brightest Dharma widget, and fears serious buyer's remorse. It's the logic of consumerism projected onto the spiritual scene IMO.

I would say that it's more a wariness of inauthenticity - maybe even a reaction against the logic of consumerism. Most religions tend to claim of themselves that they are the only or real or highest truth; I think modern folk are suspicious of this. So they want what is 'real' 'original' 'authentic' not what is fabricated.

I would say, primarily, a desire for truth in a world of (marketing) deception.

The error seems to me to be the assumption that philosophical-spiritual truth/authenticity is necessarily found externally.

Huifeng wrote:In fact in many ways, this article just further shows that the Mahayana in its various forms and later spin offs, is even more divergent from the common threads that existed in the mainstream traditions prior.

Huifeng wrote:In fact in many ways, this article just further shows that the Mahayana in its various forms and later spin offs, is even more divergent from the common threads that existed in the mainstream traditions prior.

Indeed.

Hi Jnana,

After going through this in depth elsewhere, do you want us to go through it all again? I'll wink at you, and you can wink back, and we can call it quits then, huh?